|
 Where Your Dreams Become Reality |
|
You are reporting the following post to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum Poster: rekrunner Subject: RE: Renato Canova - Arthur Lydiard Coaches Roundtable Body: Yeah, I'm aware of some transfer in Lydiard's will to the Foundation. I guess I'm just trying to figure out what shape a lawsuit would take, which really involves the next question, on what grounds would they sue? (Actually it involves answering all the questions.) When you think about it (or when I think about it), the whole idea of a lawsuit is fundamentally wrong on 3 or 4 levels. If the claim is slander or defamation, I doubt that the right to sue transfers with the intellectual property of Lydiard. This right, if it still exists, probably belongs to living family members. And I think we are not talking about infringement of copyrights, patents, or trademarks, or divulging trade secrets. Offering opinions in a forum is something usually protected by free speech laws. Such commentary is not usually considered infringing, even if it includes some direct copying of the subject being commented, which is not the case here. It's hard to imagine that "Lydiardism" is protected by any intellectual property law, to the point where it could chill criticism. Otherwise, the "Foundation" would have found a way to issue a gag order on Antonio a long time ago. And again, gypsy always argues in favor of Lydiardism, as a superior expression of the Soviet periodization he grew up with. In what form did this alleged damage appear? Is there an unwritten allegation that "gypsy" is somehow incompetent, and that his positive support of Lydiardism can actually be viewed as damaging, by association? Maybe now "gypsy" has grounds to sue, for this kind of personal attack on his character. And then there is the question of damages. Did the Foundation suffer any damage? So to the one who just wanted to say that the Foundation should sue "gypsy" for all the damage he caused to Lydiardism, it seems like that wasn't thought through at all. It seems that if anyone was "damaged", it's Renato Canova. But even insulting, unpopular speech is protected by "free speech" laws, if it's simply gypsy's opinion, and not slanderous or defaming.
Hit the submit button below if you want us to review the post. If you feel this is urgent or want a reply, email us at letsrun@letsrun.com about the post and please include a link to the thread the post is on and what page number/post on that page it is
|
